From Nedim Buyukmihci, British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection
The extended online version of your report on drug trials carried out on pet dogs in the US quotes me as expressing some concern about the use of dogs suffering from cancer to test drugs intended for people (newscientist.com/article/dn17969; 17 October, p 7). I would like to make it clear that I do not object to the principle of scientifically relevant data from ethically conducted veterinary trials being used to benefit people, or indeed vice versa, provided due caution is accorded to the inevitable species differences.
However, I would need more information before being satisfied by the Comparative Oncology Trials Consortium’s claim that the interests of the canine patient are the top priority, given that the researchers ultimately want to know whether the drugs work in people, not dogs.
For example, would a particular drug necessarily be chosen for use in a dog with cancer if it was not ultimately intended for human use? How informed is consent? Are the dogs’ guardians being paid – perhaps via free treatment for their dogs – and therefore not really acting as free agents?
Only if I could be satisfied that there are sufficient safeguards in place for the dogs, and full transparency, would I consider this proposal ethically sound.
Advertisement
London, UK
